D&D 5E D&D without the Cleric

[Bupp]

I'm toying around with the idea of getting rid of clerics. Most groups I've run it seems like someone "gets stuck" playing a cleric "because we need a healer". I've even offered (as the DM) to let the group go cleric-less and would offset it with extra healing potions and such, but I haven't had any takers.


Anyone scrap clerics?


How did, or would you do it?

 

[sunrisekid]

None of my current players play clerics, and (this might sound strange) in twenty years of DM'ing it is rare that I've met a player who actually likes playing clerics.

I don't run a "balanced" game to make up for the typical lack of clerics, and my players seem to enjoy the grittiness of the play style. We don't use any house rules for healing. Personally, I don't like RAW healing mechanics but that's what we use. I don't hand out more Potions of Healing than typical; I do allow players to buy them, and for those with the Herbalist feat (or whatever it is) they can make them.

Combats tend to get swingy. It is common for a character to be reduced to 0HP in a typical fight. That said, we enjoy the risk of that style of game. However, I have met players who detest that and who get upset when their characters die.

I prefer the grittier optional healing rules in the DMG but we don't have any characters with more reliable healing. Nor are any characters using HP buffing mechanics. In some ways, after two years, I'm still "getting a feel" for 5E healing mechanics and have yet to really settle on something that I like, and which works for our game.

 

[Skarsgard]

Our current group has a Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin and a Monk all level 5. We have a tendancy not to need healing during combat (my Paladin has had to use Lay on Hands once and has not used Cure Wounds at all) as we have been able to defeat our opponents quickly. Sometimes more by good fortune than good management but we don't feel the need for a Cleric at all. I would suggest, if you have excellent damage output, you can live without a Cleric.

That being said, I usually play the Cleric and I have always liked the class, this edition is excellent for customising and enabling you to play a variety of different types of Cleric so they don't all feel the same.

 

[Celtavian]

We did not scrap clerics and don't plan to. Sometimes they are fun to play.

I have found that in 5E you don't need a cleric healer. We're running a group with a druid and bard working together as healer and it is fine. Even groups with a solo cleric don't do better. Cleric has very little advantage healing in 5E other than a life cleric. Pointless to play them as a pure healer because it will hurt the group given the loss of damage and offensive/utility actions.

A bard, druid, or cleric should be able to adequately fill the healer role in a 5E group. Players should be buying healing potions and doing out of combat healing with short rests to get full up. Spending spell slots on heal spells is often an inefficient use of spell power that leads to longer fights with more damage done by the monsters because they are killed slower. Healing often barely offsets a single attack by a relatively weak monster. Offensive spells often do more damage than healing spells. It is in your best interest to go offense with the healer killing the damage dealing enemy as fast as possible rather than trying to heal through the damage.

Combat healing in 5E is extremely inefficient until mass cure wounds or the heal spell. Even then it might still be better to go offense. Druids can "pre-heal" using polymorph or summon spells. That is often better because it allows offense as well.

5E has a very different healing paradigm. My group has not fully realized this yet and becomes uncomfortable when I do not heal as I would in Pathfinder/3E. I don't plan to adjust how I do things. The math is not in favor of combat healing. It is not an optimal use of spell power. I would be slowing down our advancement using heal spells in all by the most dire of circumstances.

 

[Remathilis]

My group lacks one, but we have a valor bard and a moon druid, as well as a fighter, barbarian, rogue, and wizard, so they have healing covered.

 

[CM]

Warlo... oh wait, wrong forum.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm toying around with the idea of getting rid of clerics. Most groups I've run it seems like someone "gets stuck" playing a cleric "because we need a healer". I've even offered (as the DM) to let the group go cleric-less and would offset it with extra healing potions and such, but I haven't had any takers.

Anyone scrap clerics?

I've run campaigns where no one played a cleric (in 4e, it's trivial, but I've also run 4e games where no one played a 'Leader'), and I've run a campaign where almost everyone played a divine character of some sort (2e, with the CPH and every priesthood customized & interesting). It's a matter of going the extra mile to tailor the game to the party's capabilities. Less healing means more frequent rests, which means that rest-recharge powers are relatively more powerful, which you have to take into account.

Some players react badly to tailored campaigns - even though, in a sense, all campaigns are to some extent. 'Knowing' that you're placing extra potions or otherwise compensating for the lack of the critical 'bandaid' role is hard on players like that. You can just not tell them - you can even tell them that you're not doing any such thing, the module had those healing potions, you rolled them randomly...

Of course, there are alternatives to the cleric - other classes do have Cure Wounds and the like on their spell lists. The Druid and Bard are the closest substitutes. Unless it's having any class dedicated to healing, or having magical healing, at all, that's the issue, there are alternatives in 5e.

 

[Lojak]

In 5e, Clerics really seem unnecessary. We have run 4 campaigns or so in 5e and have not had a cleric in any of them. It has not been a problem. There is so much out of combat healing and secondary healing from other classes that its not an issue.

I also think in combat healing is almost always a sub-optimal tactical choice in 5e. The heals are weak relative to damage and you are almost always much better off using your action on something else.

 

[billd91]

I like playing clerics, but I understand that's not the question.

In campaigns in which there is a general lack of healing, I've run some house rules on healing. If the PCs take a rest for a little bit, bandage up, etc, they can recover half the hit points they suffered in damage since the last time they rested - without spending any hit dice. It encapsulates the idea that some hit points are short burst energy and stamina while others are physical injury and longer term energy (and thus slower to recover). It can substantially extend the adventuring stamina of a party of PCs.

 

[Gadget]

5e, more than any other addition (with the possible exception of 4e), lessons the "we gotta have a cleric" requirement. Between Bards, Druids, Paladins, Rangers and such all having access to healing spells to a greater or lesser degree, and the proliferation of self recover via features like Second Wind, Druidic polymorphing, short rests and other abilities, there just is not as great a need for a cleric healer as there was once upon a time. This frees up the cleric to be more of the support-protect-uplift-debuff class without having to spend so much of their power on healing.

Besides, I agree with the poser above in that I have found that excessive healing tends to lend to a more dragged out, up-down-up type of play over the last few editions that I personally find less satisfying. One can still be the classic cleric and provide support and protection, and be particularly useful in an undead themed game/adventure, without having to be a heal bot.

So, back to the original question: Yes, you can not have a cleric (or clerics in general) in any particular campaign and have it work well. Depending on the party make up and adventure type, you could hardly notice the loss.